Two former students, suspended after Purdue said their claims of sexual assault were fabricated or malicious, say there’s a chilling pattern on the West Lafayette campus

Purdue University gate at the corner of Stadium Avenue and University Street Monday, February 13, 2017, on the campus of Purdue University.(Photo: John Terhune/Journal & Courier, John Terhune/Journal & Courier)

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Lawyers for Purdue University and two former students could take next 12 months to gather and sort evidence in the women’s claim that the university retaliated and kicked them out of school because they couldn’t offer enough proof to go with their reports of sexual assault, documents filed this week in federal court show.

It’s a matter that Jeff Macey, an Indianapolis attorney representing the women, this week said went to the heart of the case – that there’s a pattern on the West Lafayette campus.

“I don’t want to make it sound like we don’t have a case if they’re handled separately,” Macey said Thursday, a day after he filed documents trying to knock down Purdue’s attempt in a Jan. 9 motion to do just that.

“I think we have a strong case, either way,” Macey said. “It’s kind of a tough line for my clients. To one extent, they’d prefer to not to have to be involved in this, at all. But on the other extent, they really want things to change there.”

The suit, filed in November in the U.S. District Court in Indiana’s Northern District, claims that Purdue violated federal Title IX protections for victims of sexual assault when handling the cases of Mary Doe and Nancy Roe, who initially were expelled from Purdue. In both cases, Purdue reduced their discipline to two-year suspensions.

The lawsuit also claims that “women who cannot prove their claims to the satisfaction of Purdue decisionmakers face discipline up to expulsion.” The lawsuit names Purdue, along with Katie Sermersheim, Purdue’s dean of students, and Alyssa Rollock, vice president for ethics and compliance at the university.

Tim Doty, a Purdue spokesman, said the university didn’t have a comment on Purdue’s legal strategy in the case. He referred to a statement the university offered about its policies when the case was filed.

“To the extent the case challenges the university’s handling of complaints under our anti-harassment policy and procedures, we stand by our commitment to provide a safe and secure environment for all members of our community," Doty said in November. "These are often difficult matters to investigate and decide, but we are confident in our processes and believe they afford all students with broad and appropriate protections, whether they are raising allegations of sexual misconduct or responding to them. Fair application of our policy necessarily entails ensuring all parties participate in the process in good faith by providing truthful information to assist the university in making its determinations."

The federal suit claims the women didn’t each other. Macey declined to say how they came together in the case. But here’s how the lawsuit presents their situations.

► Mary Doe, who was a freshman at the time, reported to Purdue police on Oct. 10, 2017, that she’d been assaulted in her residence hall room. According to the suit, the man accused of assault by Mary Doe had already been banned from campus because he “had threatened the life of a different Purdue female student. Purdue University was aware of this conduct.”

The suit claims the Purdue police reported the incident to the university, which launched its own investigation. The lawsuit claims Mary Doe quit participating in the university’s investigation, which eventually treated her as the target, without her knowing. The suit claims that Purdue – “contrary to its own policy” of allowing complaining parties the right to refrain from participating in a university investigation – “made credibility findings against Doe based on her decision to not participate in the investigation.”

According to the federal filing, the university alleged that Mary Doe fabricated her story and expelled her. That punishment, according to court documents, was reduced to a two-year suspension in February 2018.

► Nancy Roe was a junior at Purdue in April 2017, when she said she was sexually assaulted in her dorm room. She said a male student walked her home from a fraternity party. Court documents claim she was intoxicated and not capable of giving consent. The suit claims the man sexually assaulted Nancy Roe in various ways and choked her. The lawsuit also claims the man made audio recordings in the process.

The suit claims Nancy Roe sought medical attention after she went to class the next morning and discovered she had bruising on her neck. When she realized the extent of the assault, the court filing says, she reported the incident to the university. The lawsuit claimed that Purdue investigated and eventually accused her of reporting the assault maliciously and expelled her. She appealed, and her expulsion was reduced to a two-year suspension in October 2017.

The suit also claims that when Purdue found out that the fraternity member in Nancy Roe’s case had recorded her without her consent, Purdue officials assigned him a 10-page paper as a punishment.

In Purdue’s filing in January, William Kealey of Lafayette firm Stuart & Branigin argued that “Doe’s claims are discrete and separate from Roe’s,” based on the plaintiffs’ claims that “neither assault was related,” “neither woman knew each other,” and “each woman independently suffered an assault at the hands of a different male.” The filing argued that that was no allegation “that either plaintiff’s disciplinary outcome was a factor in the other plaintiff’s disciplinary outcome.”

“On the face of the complaint, the facts underlying Doe’s and Roe’s claims involved completely separate and unrelated events of alleged assault and completely separate and unrelated decisions,” the Purdue filing claimed. “There is no allegation of an event that is common to Doe’s allegations and Roe’s allegations.”

Purdue’s filing also argued that considering the two cases together might jeopardize “the privacy of anonymity” of Mary Doe and Nancy Roe.

Macey’s response, filed Wednesday in federal court, spoke to efficiency in the court’s time, given that so many players on Purdue’s side were involved in both women’s situations. But the response also leaned on what bound women’s allegations.

“The challenge to Purdue’s policy and complaint process,” Macey wrote, “is a central and common element of both plaintiffs’ claims.”

“This case is in its early days, I think,” Macey said. “I’d like to keep my clients together here. What happened to them is just chilling.”

Reach Dave Bangert at 765-420-5258 or at dbangert@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @davebangert.